Trigger warning:
this blog contains personal reflections and NOT endorsements, recommendations, advertisements, advice, criticism, admonitions, or censures. It is part of a personal activity of "thinking-through." All representations are merely provisional and are mine and mine alone. Its subject is 'Anglican patrimony'.
(N. B. Many of the posts are quotations or re-posts, as clearly indicated by the hyperlink.)

Patrimony

We deny to claim "any Superiority to ourself to defyne, decyde, or determyn any Article or Poyntof the Christian Fayth and Relligion,or to chang any Ancient Ceremony of the Church from the Forme before received and observedby the Catholick and Apostolick Church."

Norman Simplicity

Thursday, February 27, 2014

There has been much heat (but little light) on a variety of related subjects, primarily the so-called "Reform of the Reform." The proponents of the latter -- who have done many good works -- often seem to fixate on the precise moment in which things went wrong. Consequently, there is a concomitant fascination with dates, with mumblings about 1962, 1965, etc. (And this itself touches on the tangential (and rather outré) topics of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism etc., etc.)

Fortunately, students of liturgical reform have begun to suspect that the later "movings" stemmed from much earlier "stirrings." I can't contribute to this polemic, although there is much that is interesting to read and to consider in all of it (including here). After all, what do I really know? All of my personal experience is, perforce, post-1955. But it seems to me that we really haven't gotten much further.

The 1950s stand not as a moment (necessarily) of error but of crisis (in the root sense of the word). Let's turn back to the tenth edition of Ritual Notes (1956):

778. Anglo-catholics are therefore now faced with the question as to their attitude to these changes. First, it should be said that, unless the original adoption of these rites by Anglo-catholics, now some generations ago, was purely an act of private judgment (and so in accordance with protestant rather than catholic principles), it implied that (a) it was permissible to supplement the Prayer Book rites as they stand, and (b) that this should be done from a source which was in its own way authoritative. There seem, therefore, to be two courses open: either to fall back on the Prayer Book as it stands for these days in all its liturgical poverty; or to adopt the roman rites (with or without adaptation*); and this will mean adopting the new rites, for the old now have no place in that Church. What seems impossible is to retain the old ceremonies and times (from which, as has been said, all authority has now been removed), unless the very un-catholic principle of private judgement is invoked; for it is hardly possible to describe these as either the authoritative or "traditional" use of the English Church [my emphases].

779.The changes in the Holy Week rites and times have not been made on grounds of antiquarianism (though they do in fact go back on the whole to the early Christian Holy Week); they have been made out of pastoral care for souls. The ceremonies of the Great Week, which had originally been the central observance of the Christian year, had, for reasons that need not be particularized, become in fact the preserve of the devout (and leisured) few who were not involved in, or who could escape from, the requirements of secular life* [my emphases]. It is of a piece with other changes of recent years in the Roman Communion as a result of the "liturgical movement," such as the modification of the Eucharistic fast and the simplification of rubrics; and indeed goes back to the great movement initiated by Pope Pius X towards frequent and daily Communion.

(Note how this discussion recapitulates many much earlier debates, some stemming as far back as the nineteenth century. I still wonder, after all these years, if the first paragraph poses a false dilemma while, simultaneously, not being at all impervious to the lively considerations of the latter paragraph.)

We still haven't answered these questions (and I don't have any answers, only more questions). Most of what is collected here is not original but gathered from far afield. Consequently, this blog is not an announcement of "allegiances" but only an act of remembrance and of open wonder.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

The High Church movement was cerebral, scholarly, quiet and calm. In contrast to the extreme Romanists who tried to nudge the Church of England to catch up with contemporary Roman Catholic practice, the High Churchman started with the basic premise that the formulas of the Prayerbook were an adequate, even complete, statement of the Catholic and Apostolic faith of the Church of England, and yet at the same time they were not so prejudiced (as Evangelical Protestant apologists were) as to overlook or dismiss the Medieval Liturgy of Sarum, and the uses of other great Sees, and indeed these Liturgists produced some important scholarship on Liturgy in Medieval England, translating the Sarum Missal and Breviary. These translations allowed for the publication of editions of the Book of Common Prayer printed in parrallel with the Sarum Missal - an exercise that allowed Catholic Anglicans to see quite plainly that whatever Cranmer had intended to do to the English Liturgy, in most cases he had merely paraphrased the Sarum Liturgy in English.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

All four variants are Roman rites because they now include -- or, rather, ought to include -- the "pure Roman" elements -- i.e., the First Eucharistic prayer inter alia -- noted in the first post below.

In the case of these styles, one must of course be careful to not dogmatize them. But one can suggest that perhaps this or that style is more representative of our tradition, and thus also a more dignified, solemn and fitting expression, in much the way we can speak of chant as being particularly suited to the character of the liturgy, iconography a particularly venerable form of liturgical art, or the gothic as well suited to our Catholic churches ...

I believe that such restorations, particularly of our most ancient and longstanding of vesture, put hand in hand with the restoration of our chant would manifestly increase the edification of the faithful, and help restore the depth of our liturgical tradition, spirituality and symbolism. Further it may even help regain for men a strong sense of their vocation in the Church, alongside that of women. These things represent amongst the finest periods of our tradition, including the patristic period and the great ages of Faith, the ages of the Cathedrals of Europe. Particularly in an era when many men feel that religion is the domain of women, it is a matter worthy our attention and consideration.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Like the deacon, who would wear the dalmatic, the subdeacon could wear the tunic. However, out of a desire for less solemnity, both the deacon and subdeacon could omit the wearing of their traditional outer vestment. This would leave the deacon wearing a transverse stole over the alb and the subdeacon wearing only the alb. With the resulting Ministry of Acolyte in 1972, the vestment proper to this Ministry is now the alb (which is the vestment also common to Instituted Lectors). Any mention of the Tunic has now disappeared from the documents in relation to the OF since 1972, just as any mention of the maniple has not been seen since 1967. This would seem to spell the end of the Tunic for an Instituted Acolyte in the OF, but liturgical law is very interesting.

It is interesting to look at the mind of the Church in regards to the Ministry of Acolyte, does it not have any of the character of the subdeacon? In the apostolic letter Ministeria quædam, we find the following provision. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of lector and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the lector and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops. There seems to be some connection in the mind of the Church.

Building on this we find in the Ceremonial of Bishops, n. 65:

"The vestment common to ministers of every rank is the alb, tied at the waist with the cincture, unless it is made to fit without a cincture. An amice should be be put on first if the alb does not completely cover the minister's street clothing at the neck. A surplice may not be substituted for the alb when the chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when a stole is used instead of the chasuble or dalmatic. When a surplice is worn, it must be worn with the cassock.

The last provision is very interesting. It is for the Bishop to approve other vesture. Other vesture has often come to mean, street clothes, but this need not be limited to it. Could not the Bishop approve the use of a Tunic for an Instituted Acolyte?

Or they could just wear nicely apparelled amices and albs,as these Dominicans once did.

At two other liturgical blogs there is a great debate going on between two liturgists of different perspectives, each claiming infallibility at it concerns the current day liturgical landscape.

The progressive thinks that the reformed Mass of Pope Paul VI is far superior to the Mass celebrated during Vatican II and before.

The traditionalist thinks that the Mass celebrated during Vatican II and before is the better format for the Mass.

I won't go into the details because some of it is like trying to count the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Let me just say that the major principles of Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium and to a certain extent the other documents of Vatican II apply to the whole Church and the liturgy in terms of whatever form is chosen.

That's the change all of us must accept. Today the Church in the Latin Rite has up to three variations from official policy. The Ordinary Form, the Extraordinary Form and the Anglican Use. Get use to it!

The theology that the Church, Head and members gathers for the liturgy applies to all the liturgies there are in the Church both east and west. That's the way it is. That's our ecclesiology, each doing what is prescribe for each in the liturgy, bishop, priest, deacon, acolyte, lector, choir member, laity.

All liturgies of the Church are communal, bar none!

All liturgies of the Church make visible the Church (Militant, Suffering and Triumphant) in the various visible gatherings of the Church wherever that gathering is!

All Liturgies of the Church contain the Word of God, some have more, some have less. The EF has more, the OF has a broader lectionary but less Scripture per Mass than the EF!

BOTTOM LINE: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass make present in an unbloody, sacramental way, the Passion of Our Lord, broadly understood as the Paschal Mystery. And the Sacrificial Banquet is shared in the Rite of Holy Communion in the worthy reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord at the Priest's communion and the Communion of the laity.

Full, conscious and actual participation is required in all forms of the liturgy, the three official ones now in the Latin Rite and of course in all the different forms of the Divine Liturgy in the East. This is required no matter the language used, with Latin preeminent common, neutral sacral language in the Latin Rite.

protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.

Because of these positions, the “radical” position—while similarly committed to the pro-life, pro-marriage teachings of the Church—is deeply critical of contemporary arrangements of market capitalism, is deeply suspicious of America’s imperial ambitions, and wary of the basic premises of liberal government. It is comfortable with neither party, and holds that the basic political division in America merely represents two iterations of liberalism—the pursuit of individual autonomy in either the social/personal sphere (liberalism) or the economic realm (“conservatism”—better designated as market liberalism). Because America was founded as a liberal nation, “radical” Catholicism tends to view America as a deeply flawed project, and fears that the anthropological falsehood at the heart of the American founding is leading inexorably to civilizational catastrophe. It wavers between a defensive posture, encouraging the creation of small moral communities that exist apart from society—what Rod Dreher, following Alasdair MacIntyre, has dubbed “the Benedict Option”—and, occasionally, a more proactive posture that hopes for the conversion of the nation to a fundamentally different and truer philosophy and theology.

You possess many gifts, but patience isn’t one of them. You’re tough on yourself — and on others. You’re independent, too, and you don’t like to be told what to do. You wish the Church would be a little tighter in discipline. As for the pagans, you’ve pretty much written them off. Sometimes you think the Church would be a better place if you were in charge.